25 Jul 2023
The court concluded the appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and that the costs and disbursements claimed ($1,958 total: $1,908 costs and $50 disbursements) were appropriate under Schedules 2 and 3 of the High Court Rules 2016, and ordered the appellant to pay that sum.
25 Feb 2021
The Court held the proceedings were properly filed in the Tauranga registry under r 5.1(2) and that failure to file in the proper registry is an irregularity not a nullity under r 1.5; further, Hayman produced quantified, non‑contingent counterclaims and clear and persuasive grounds for them (GPS cancellation and signwriting) such that there was a genuine and substantial dispute and a net set-off reducing the demand; accordingly the statutory demand was set aside.
21 Jun 2018
The liquidator's decision was reversed because it was unreasonable in the circumstances: the fund represented the applicant's money paid as security after the company failed to comply with the agreed mediation timetable, the liquidator did not sufficiently evaluate the legal merits or obtain appropriate legal advice before withholding consent, and the alternative forums proposed by the liquidator were impractical or inadequate; accordingly the fund must be released to the applicant with the liquidator retaining rights to pursue recovery by appropriate means.
17 Apr 2018
The debtor did not establish a cross-claim that she could not have used in the Disputes Tribunal or on appeal and the alleged cross-claims are not genuine or triable with a reasonable probability of success; accordingly s 17(7) does not operate to set aside the bankruptcy notice and the application is dismissed.
20 Sept 2017
The statutory presumption in High Court Rule 15.23 applies when a plaintiff discontinues; there was no good reason to defer costs to the Disputes Tribunal; the plaintiff had made a reasonable Calderbank offer of $2,000 which the defendant unreasonably refused, and justice required a modest reduction from full 2B costs, resulting in an award of reduced costs of $2,000 against the plaintiff under r 14.7(g).
26 Jun 2017
The plaintiff failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that it was the creditor entitled to the claimed debt because contemporaneous evidence (the 26 July 2016 email exchange and the invoice) established the contract with Chevin Civil (Ltd or Chevin Civil 2015 Ltd); alleged clerical errors and later use of the plaintiff's bank/GST details were insufficient to alter the contractual identity, so the liquidation applications were dismissed.
28 Mar 2017
Leave under s165 was granted only to permit Mr Murphy to bring a derivative claim in the name of Dawnhaven Ltd limited to the Disputes Tribunal for recovery of his one-third share of the c. $27,000 paid to Mr Crisp because the claim was arguable, the sum fell within the Tribunal's jurisdiction thus minimizing cost and procedural barriers, the company would not pursue the claim due to Mr Crisp's control, and other larger or court-based claims and pre-commencement discovery were speculative and refused.
7 Mar 2017
The applicant's alleged set-off arises from proceedings that were remitted to and finally decided by the Disputes Tribunal; the fresh District Court proceeding is bound to fail as res judicata and an abuse of process, therefore it cannot constitute a genuine set-off under s290(4)(b); the applicant provided insufficient evidence of solvency and there are no 'other grounds' under s290(4)(c) to justify setting aside the demand; accordingly the statutory demand is upheld and the applicant must pay the demanded sum by the date fixed or face liquidation proceedings.
1 Feb 2017
Respondent awarded increased costs of $10,865.55 because it succeeded, the appellant unreasonably pursued summary judgment and an appeal in respect of a modest dispute that should have been resolved in the Disputes Tribunal, the summary judgment application lacked merit due to credibility issues that required trial, and the appellant unreasonably refused a reasonable settlement offer; there was insufficient evidence to justify a non-party costs order against Mr John Campbell.
6 Oct 2016
The High Court held that while disputes requiring determination under the Property (Relationships) Act are beyond the Disputes Tribunal's jurisdiction, the Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the claim once the parties expressly agreed and narrowed the issues to exclude relationship property questions; accordingly the Tribunal's earlier decision declining jurisdiction was set aside and the matter remitted for rehearing within the agreed limits.